Even if the stamp image next to the defendant B's name, which is the evidence of No. 1, is affixed to the seal of the defendant B, the plaintiff voluntarily affixed the seal of the defendant C to the defendant B's name. Thus, it is not sufficient to recognize that the entries of No. 2, 8, and 9 are sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant C had the authority to affix the seal of the defendant B, and unless there is any other evidence to recognize it, the above evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's allegation otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B cannot be accepted.

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. In full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence No. 1 (a certificate, Gap's evidence No. 14 may be acknowledged that defendant Eul affixed his seal, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been formed), Eul's evidence No. 4, and the overall purport of the arguments, it can be acknowledged that defendant C agreed to settle the money borrowed from the plaintiff as a business fund at KRW 100 million and pay it to the plaintiff up to March 31, 2013 (hereinafter "the agreement in this case"). Thus, the defendant C is liable to pay the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 100 million and losses for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Defendant C’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 19,228,934, which is a part of the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff as business funds, such as office maintenance expenses and credit card expenses. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant repaid the above amount after the instant agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) The Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff as purchase cost for the king house.